Babylon Posted 12 September 2011 Posted 12 September 2011 watch this video and pause it at 6 seconds I' m just a little bit suspicious of a radome (or nosecone of an aircraft) exiting like that , seemingly in tact but no doubt there are some gcse physics explanations I don't think you need gcse in physics to be able to say, you don't have a fecking clue what part of the plane/building is come out the other side.
marko Posted 12 September 2011 Posted 12 September 2011 watch this video and pause it at 6 seconds I' m just a little bit suspicious of a radome (or nosecone of an aircraft) exiting like that , seemingly in tact but no doubt there are some gcse physics explanations Yes there is. When something explodes the air pressure and force blows things away from it. Further, there is nothing remotely resembling an intact nosecone flying out of that building.
zubi Posted 12 September 2011 Posted 12 September 2011 A question to those who believe that there is no conspiracy what so ever. Do you think we would have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan if 9/11 never occured?
Babylon Posted 12 September 2011 Posted 12 September 2011 Not mine. But then again it isn't as spectacular or grand like the others suggested... You'll have to PM me it, I've been busy with the other piles of poop on here!
fleckneymike Posted 12 September 2011 Posted 12 September 2011 A question to those who believe that there is no conspiracy what so ever. Do you think we would have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan if 9/11 never occured? Iraq yes as the basis for that was WMD (for us anyway). Afganistan probably not though the London bombings would ultimately bring that about. If I might ask a question in return do you not think that anyone orchestrating 9/11 would include some links to Iraq in the plot as opposed to Saudi Arabia and Afganistan?
Zingari Posted 12 September 2011 Author Posted 12 September 2011 I don't think you need gcse in physics to be able to say, you don't have a fecking clue what part of the plane/building is come out the other side. what do you reckon it is ? a wheel , engine , chair, desk or a filing cabinet or something ? Anyway , I'm still undecided as to what i believe , but I really don't think the questions have been answered and i'm grateful to the dedicated few who keep asking them , however much it seems to irritate you and many others
fleckneymike Posted 12 September 2011 Posted 12 September 2011 what do you reckon it is ? a wheel , engine , chair, desk or a filing cabinet or something ? Anyway , I'm still undecided as to what i believe , but I really don't think the questions have been answered and i'm grateful to the dedicated few who keep asking them , however much it seems to irritate you and many others What questions do you feel haven't been answered?
Babylon Posted 12 September 2011 Posted 12 September 2011 The only thing I claim to know for sure is that the people we are told were responsible for 911 were not responsible. Some of the hijackers were still alive after 911 and Osama Bin Laden certainly didn't make sure that the US Air Force didn't follow standard operating procedure (for the first time) that day. Just two of many things. The laws of physics prove that the buildings couldn't collapse like they did so I'm not sure how you come to your physics conclusion. Path of least resistance. I've heard some of the best high rise architects and engineers talk about this. And please don't bring the NIST report into it because that thing isn't worth the paper it is written on and everything they say can be proved wrong, including the pancake theory. It's what the NIST report doesn't talk about that is the important stuff. I'm not abusive, I even said that it was light hearted when I called you all dipshits. I've read worse character assassinations coming from the pro official story side but they're not worth taking to heart. I'm not even going to respond to the absurd first para. The physics i'm talking about is your constant procrastination that the plane could not possibly do damage to the pentagon. Mainly based on the argument that it's PARTLY made of light weight materials. As I have pointed out (along with others) is that that doesn't matter, what matters is it's mass and it's velocity (not forgetting the fuel). Which combine enough force to do a shit load of damage to pretty much anything it comes into contact with, reinforced or not. Reinforced means it it stronger than normal build standards, it does not mean it's impervious to the laws of physics. The free fall thing has been gone over 100 times, there are lots of videos you can watch (I know you like them) that will explain it to you.
Zingari Posted 12 September 2011 Author Posted 12 September 2011 What questions do you feel haven't been answered? the same ones that architects and engineers 911 , and pilots for truth keep asking you don't really believe they haven't heard many times before all the shite replies and theories that have appeared on here do you ?
marko Posted 12 September 2011 Posted 12 September 2011 what do you reckon it is ? a wheel , engine , chair, desk or a filing cabinet or something ? Anyway , I'm still undecided as to what i believe , but I really don't think the questions have been answered and i'm grateful to the dedicated few who keep asking them , however much it seems to irritate you and many others The point where you've frozen it is totally out of context with reality. If that was an intact nosecone gravity would dictate it would fall to earth. Agree? Watch the video and there is nothing that falls to the ground after exiting that side of the WTC. It looks like it could well be a plume of dust/smoke being forced out of a window.
fleckneymike Posted 12 September 2011 Posted 12 September 2011 the same ones that architects and engineers 911 , and pilots for truth keep asking you don't really believe they haven't heard all the shite relies that have appeared on here do you ? Could you post a specific question that hasn't been answered, or that has been answered but you feel the answer in insufficient.
marko Posted 12 September 2011 Posted 12 September 2011 the same ones that architects and engineers 911 , and pilots for truth keep asking you don't really believe they haven't heard many times before all the shite replies and theories that have appeared on here do you ? Probably, but like a few others, they simply can't understand simple physics, rational thinking and logic when it's put in front of them and keep searching for something that's not there.
Zingari Posted 12 September 2011 Author Posted 12 September 2011 Could you post a specific question that hasn't been answered, or that has been answered but you feel the answer in insufficient. As i've said before , whether or not i feel the answers are sufficient is pretty irrelevant as i don't have the full understanding of all they are trying to say . But there are many experts in their own field who insist the explanations are not fully satisfactory and for whatever reason dedicate themselves ( m,ostly at some personal cost ) to insist on trying to establish what really happened can you blame them for that ?
Zingari Posted 12 September 2011 Author Posted 12 September 2011 Probably, but like a few others, they simply can't understand simple physics, rational thinking and logic when it's put in front of them and keep searching for something that's not there. i think richard gage and the thousands of ae911 truth have a modicum of physics knowledge
coale39 Posted 12 September 2011 Posted 12 September 2011 As i've said before , whether or not i feel the answers are sufficient is pretty irrelevant as i don't have the full understanding of all they are trying to say . But there are many experts in their own field who insist the explanations are not fully satisfactory and for whatever reason dedicate themselves ( m,ostly at some personal cost ) to insist on trying to establish what really happened can you blame them for that ? Experts believed a few years ago that boom and bust economics was over...
marko Posted 12 September 2011 Posted 12 September 2011 As i've said before , whether or not i feel the answers are sufficient is pretty irrelevant as i don't have the full understanding of all they are trying to say . But there are many experts in their own field who insist the explanations are not fully satisfactory and for whatever reason dedicate themselves ( m,ostly at some personal cost ) to insist on trying to establish what really happened can you blame them for that ? Conversely, there are a hell of a lot more experts who say the explanations are plausible, rational and understandable. If so many experts were insistent that this was an inside job, do you not think the voice of discontent would be so loud the whole world would sit up and listen?
Zingari Posted 12 September 2011 Author Posted 12 September 2011 Experts believed a few years ago that boom and bust economics was over... so experts on both sides can be wrong , (or even misleading)
shen Posted 12 September 2011 Posted 12 September 2011 I'm sure you can find the proof if you really want to. It might take a bit more effort than just clicking on a few of the stupid links that come up when you google conspiracy stuff though. Stay away from fruitcake sites and stick to what the military men, engineers, architects, ex embassy staff etc. have to say. Have you ever heard the US embassy staff talking about the strange ways that the 'hijackers' recieved their US visas? Atta's father was probably devastated when he realised his son wasn't the man he thought. Does this mean that we agree that Islam or Muslims were not to blame? Because there is no doubt that Atta and his cronies were not Muslims in the slightest. Why won't you just disclose your source(s)? You've obviously been looking at this case and many others very meticulously and the effortless way you can post videos, claim things as facts, etc indicates you have your sources at hand. You're pointing in a very vague direction, and telling people to scour for something they don't believe exists
marko Posted 12 September 2011 Posted 12 September 2011 i think richard gage and the thousands of ae911 truth have a modicum of physics knowledge They obviously have difficulties with logic and rational thinking then.
fleckneymike Posted 12 September 2011 Posted 12 September 2011 As i've said before , whether or not i feel the answers are sufficient is pretty irrelevant as i don't have the full understanding of all they are trying to say . But there are many experts in their own field who insist the explanations are not fully satisfactory and for whatever reason dedicate themselves ( m,ostly at some personal cost ) to insist on trying to establish what really happened can you blame them for that ? Could you be specific as to what answers aren't satisfactory then? The vast majority of conspiracy theorists/experts don't offer their opinions for free, Loose Change 1 cost $8,000 and they sold 50,000 copies. The final edition cost $1m.
Zingari Posted 12 September 2011 Author Posted 12 September 2011 Conversely, there are a hell of a lot more experts who say the explanations are plausible, rational and understandable. If so many experts were insistent that this was an inside job, do you not think the voice of discontent would be so loud the whole world would sit up and listen? you'd think they'd have sat up and listened when they were being told that the gulf of tonkin was a staged event , many in the military must have known about it , but stayed silent . why do you think they kept so quiet ? fear of being labelled loony or intimidation they are very powerful reasons
fleckneymike Posted 12 September 2011 Posted 12 September 2011 you'd think they'd have sat up and listened when they were being told that the gulf of tonkin was a staged event , many in the military must have known about it , but stayed silent . why do you think they kept so quiet ? fear of being labelled loony or intimidation they are very powerful reasons Why have you drawn a connection between the Gulf of Tonkin and the science surrounding a collapsing building?
marko Posted 12 September 2011 Posted 12 September 2011 you'd think they'd have sat up and listened when they were being told that the gulf of tonkin was a staged event , many in the military must have known about it , but stayed silent . why do you think they kept so quiet ? fear of being labelled loony or intimidation they are very powerful reasons I don't give a chuff about the Gulf of Tonkin, we're talking about 9/11. Were the cover-ups on the same scale? I'll answer that one for free...NO. Just because an old, totally disconnected administration did something doesn't mean the 9/11 Government did. Please, please, please stop referring to the Gulf of Tonkin, it's of no relevance at all.
zubi Posted 12 September 2011 Posted 12 September 2011 Iraq yes as the basis for that was WMD (for us anyway). Afganistan probably not though the London bombings would ultimately bring that about. If I might ask a question in return do you not think that anyone orchestrating 9/11 would include some links to Iraq in the plot as opposed to Saudi Arabia and Afganistan? No I don't think they would need to. The American people were pretty riled up by the whole event and they expected their country to attack another to make them feel secure and in charge. When George Bush pointed his finger at iraq i'm pretty sure the majority of Americans thought that was where they were breeding terrorists and were on board with the idea. Plus alot of them have never seen a map before according to this video
Zingari Posted 12 September 2011 Author Posted 12 September 2011 Why have you drawn a connection between the Gulf of Tonkin and the science surrounding a collapsing building? i haven't i was asked why so many "experts" may kept quiet.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.